Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

quote:

---

First off, it would be nice if you understood and applied the difference between "You are lying" and "You are mistaken."

---

It is not possible to be genuinely mistaken when corrections have been offered previously.

quote:

---

Perhaps, to be more accurate, I should not have said never, etc.

---

To be more accurate you would have never suggested that science is frightened of investigating the supernatural. Scientists do it ALL the time.

quote:

---

In your list I see everything but Biblical stuff. I've long derided National Geographic's Robert Ballard and others because they appear to have no interest in falsifying or verifying the very significant evidence of the Exodus crossing site at Nuweiba Beach on the Gulf of Aqaba. There's a lot of debate on that in EvC's archives. Perhaps you would like to search in the archives or click my profile as it's in my profile history.

---

How is that a prophecy? Most scholars have come to the conclusion that the Exodus story is a composite, not history. The details have never made much sense. Look at Numbers 1:46 - it says that the Jews numbered 603,550 fighting men. That is preposterous. When you add in the women, children and older men and women you are going to get somewhere around 2 million people on the exodus. The entire population of Egypt at that time was about 3 million. If the Jews had marched in close order 10 abreast, that would have made a line 150 miles long.
Not to mention the fact that this lot are all supposed to have descended from 70 people over the course of 215 years. It isn't just wrong, it is barking mad.
The numbers don't add up, the chronology is all wrong, the archaeology offers no support and the actual text is obviously from the wrong period - 5th/6th century BCE.
Add all that up, and the fact that your suggested crossing place is about 800-1200 metres deep is the least of the problems. (Just think about that for a moment - 3/4 of a mile deep. How the hell did they get up and down? More preposterous nonsense I'm afraid).

quote:

---

To a person, the science buffs here at EvC are not studied on the remarkable Biblica prophecies, though, like you, they make weak attempts to refute what I cite.

---

You haven't cited anything to refute yet - you have made several obviously wrong statements which I have corrected, that's all.

quote:

---

You're revealing your ignorance relative to the messianic prophecies. The Jesus stuff is not the most imperially significant of the fulfilled prophecies relative to fulfilled predictions in the Biblical record. The dispersement and end time restoration of Israel, the messianic nation chosen by Jehovah is more imperical, for example so far as the here and now fulfillments.

---

No ignorance here. The Jesus stuff is certainly the most important to a huge number of Christians. Because you think otherwise does not make it so. What 'significant empire' are you talking about? What empirical data have you got?

quote:

---

The end time predictions relative to what is now the Islamic block of nations and their role as enemies of the restored nation of Israel is another. Those are just a few. I've been studiously into them and daily reading the Bible for over 60 years, since a teenager.

---

I hope you are not talking about Revelations here? Poor Mad John of Patmos? Surely not. Gibberish, written by a mad hermit, open to just about any interpretation you care to put on it. The only surprising thing about Revelations is that the 382CE council (after Nicea) agreed to leave it in the cannon. If you have been reading the bible daily for 60 years you will be able to cite the verses you maintain make some valid prophecies about Israel. Up to now it is just words I'm afraid.

quote:

---

I'm neither lying or mistaken. LOL on the theology that the monks teach. How much of the prophets did they apprise you on? If they knew and believed the Bible themselves, they would know that the Holy Father is in Heaven and not a sinful earth creature. Obviously they failed to apprise you on the messianic prophecies, etc.

---

The Salesian and Jesuit monks who taught me as a youth (I went to catholic single-sex grammar from 11-19) have several centuries of bible study to call on. I assure you that in any debate with a knowledgable Jesuit you would end up thinking black was white and your elbow was your backside. They have had much practice in theological double-speek and semantic sophistry.
You keep talking about 'prophets' - WHICH prophets? There are at least 60 that I can think of without checking - probably more.

quote:

---

The Bible is not a simple book. One never masters it totally. I'm still studiously at it as an Olympian works out for the high prize. I have not arrived, so to speak. I've learned some things Biblically related from secularist members like you over the years here.

---

The bible is a collection of various things. The OT is largely a manual on Jewishness with a folk history, the laws and customs, the creation myth etc. The NT is a very selectively chosen set of stories about the life of Jesus written by...well, after Paul there is no real certainty about who wrote what and we could debate the various theories forever. It isn't particularly complex - people choose to make it so. There is nothing complex about the simple equation x(n+1) -> x(n)*C*(1-x(n)), but that little equation contains the seeds of chaos and has so many possible outcomers that it boggles the mind. You read in the bible what you want to read and you put into it whatever meaning you bring to it.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Which makes it all the more surprising how easy they are to refute. "Prophecy" is a mug's game, Buz. Even the Greeks knew that, four thousand years ago. And prophecy is even easier when you can write the prophecies down after the fact and pretend they came before - ala the Bible. Don't you think any putative "state for Jews" would have been located in the Middle East and been called "Israel"? When you know about the prophecy and work to make it happen in some form, that's not prophetic. There are a lot of other books. Some more recent. Maybe you could check them out? Right, I mean they've only devoted their lives to the study of theology, whereas you... are what, again?I've long known that it seems to be endemic to creationists to reject the very idea of expertise, but I had no idea that their rejection extended to their own co-religionists. There's really no one at all you're prepared to consider more knowledgeable on a subject than yourself, is there. Buz? Unless of course they already agree with you?

quote:

---

In your list I see everything but Biblical stuff. I've long derided National Geographic's Robert Ballard and others because they appear to have no interest in falsifying or verifying the very significant evidence of the Exodus crossing site at Nuweiba Beach on the Gulf of Aqaba. There's a lot of debate on that in EvC's archives. Perhaps you would like to search in the archives or click my profile as it's in my profile history.

---

What you mean is that in the absence of any significant evidence to support the claims made about the site you took to slandering National Geographic. Of course they have no interest is launching a hugely expensive mission to a site which likely has nothing of interest to be found. Why should they waste that much money ?

quote:

---

To a person, the science buffs here at EvC are not studied on the remarkable Biblica prophecies, though, like you, they make weak attempts to refute what I cite.

---

By which you mean that we read the Bible rather than the nutty ideas of your so-called "experts" (who you daren't even name).
And to those who care about what the Bible actually says (obviously not you, Buz) our "attempts" are hardly feeble.

quote:

---

The end time predictions relative to what is now the Islamic block of nations and their role as enemies of the restored nation of Israel is another. Those are just a few. I've been studiously into them and daily reading the Bible for over 60 years, since a teenager.

---

The fact is that you don't know how to study the Bible. It's not a matter of inventing interpretations that fit with your worldview (and not worrying about how much you have to twist the text in doing so). It's things like comparing parallel passages in the Gospels, considering the historical context a book was written in, what it might mean to the original audience.Even reading the Bible carefully would be an improvement. If you had read what the Revelation had said about the Mark of the Beast you would never have thought that it could be a UPC barcode. No doubt you got that idea from the crazy writings of your "experts" who clearly had no idea what they were saying.

Nope. We were discussing "the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity" and you did, at the time, agree that this was "highly improbable".Are you reneging on this? (**Sigh**). Buz's concept of the supernatural might exist. It doesn't stop you (quite rightly in my view) berating him as talking un-evidenced nonsense though does it? All I ask is that your arguments are consistent.I ask again: If it is entirely unevidenced then it can have originated only by virtue of someone's imagination. How can it possibly be otherwise?Whilst the unevidenced imaginings of ones mind might possibly exist by some miracle of coincidence this would seem unlikely at best. No?Note: - UNLIKELY. Not impossible. Boldening mine. "Evidence"?So are you now saying the supernatural is evidenced? Having previously (about 4 posts ago) unequivocally stated that the supernatural is definitely NOT evidenced in any way at all.All I ask is that your arguments are consistent.Please clarify how belief in the actual existence of the supernatural can be based on evidence if there is no evidence supporting the actual existence of the supernatural. Are you suggesting that we need to disprove the existence of the supernatural before dismissing it as unlikely?Can you disprove Buz's much derided concept of the supernatural?Can you disprove (for example) the claim that Yahweh of the OT is going to come along and reveal to us all how he created the universe 9,000 years ago with the appearance of being much older?Are these scenarios unlikely to actually occur? Not all beliefs are equally evidenced. I fear that you are going down the route of insisting that claims of the supernatural are made in a vacuum of evidence. I also fear that you are going down the route of insisting that nothing at all can be said about that which has not been disproven.Both are false assumptions. Please tell me you are not going down that route..........?

I have no problem with being inconsistent. Remember, any God(s) or god(s) is not totally un-evidenced. To be a God or god it was in a story.I don't understand why you are having such a gard time.I am NOT saying that the story is evidence of the existence or not existence of the God or god. I am saying that the story is the evidence for the belief, the method of transfer.I have said repeatedly that all God(s) or god(s) are the product of human imagination. They may or may not reflect, however imperfectly, something that does exist.Honestly, I find this boring.Let's call it a day.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So I see.The problem seems to be with your rampantly inconsistent use of the term "evidence".When you want to berate people like Buz you seem quite happy to use the term "evidence" in the same way that I am applying it.However when you want to suggest that all beliefs are evidenced you seem to include any reason for belief, regardless of any considerations pertaining to accuracy or reliability, under the umbrella term "evidence".Which means that Buz's "story" (for example) is simultaneously both evidenced and un-evidenced by your use of the term.And then you get all haughty when it is pointed out that this doesn't really make any sense.

First, I don't suggest that all beliefs are evidenced, I can't say anything about all beliefs.And yes, far too often accuracy and reliability do not play a part in a person's beliefs. For example I have said that my belief in GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen is not rational, logical or reasonable.What I have said is that the belief in a God or god is based on the evidence in stories, tales and mythos.Notice that throughout our conversation I have never claimed that the actual super natural or any super natural critter really exists or is the cause of anything. I may believe that, but I understand that I cannot offer any evidence of that.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes. But what are you saying these myths and stories provide evidence of exactly?This remains very very unclear.If nothing else please clarify this one simple point.

Only of the stories.I don't think I can make it any clearer.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So the stories provide evidence of the stories? Huh?It would seem that this ca mean only one of two things. Either:1) The stories provide evidence of the existence of the stories.OR2) The stories provide evidence of the reality of the entities and events that are told in the stories.If 1) you are making just about the most pointlessly circular tautological statement one can conceive of. If 2) you are claiming that the actual existence of the supernatural entities that the stories are about is evidenced by the stories themselves. But you have previously clearly stated that this is not what you mean.So is there a 3) that I am missing? If so what is it? You could make it a great deal clearer.You have to admit that "Stories are evidence of stories" is a pretty pointless answer.

Sorry you are still confused.The stories are the evidence that supports their beliefs.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

As has been noted the problem is semantic. The word 'evidence' is like the word 'theory' in that both have an everyday meaning which is rather different and distinct from their scientific meaning.
You are using the word in the everyday sense - anything that supports an idea or concept, regardless of accuracy or even relevance. OK, that is permissable and you will find a similar definition in many dictionaries.
When a scientist uses the word, or it is used in a scientific context, then we want it to work a bit harder. Scientifically valid evidence will normally be empirical (not always) and will conform to the scientific method - ie it will be testable and properly documented. Specifically the evidence will not be dependant on inference, and it will not be tautologous (eg supporting the historical accuracy of the bible by pointing to a passage which says it is historically accurate).If semantics is the game then fair enough, you both have a point and both are technically correct. It is, though, IMHO pretty sterile and boring to read....

I agree, quite boring.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

But what are the stories evidence of?If the belief is that the supernatural actually exists then the stories are not evidence of that belief are they?Unless you are also advocating a causal relationship between the stories and the existence of the supernatural. Which you claim that you are not.Your whole "stories are evidence" thing is just a pointless tautology unless the stories are evidence of something other than the stories themselves.

So now we have that the beliefs are based on stories that are evidence that support the beliefs.This is tautological nonsense jar.Is that really all that your much vaunted position on mythos and stories amounts to?What are the stories evidence of? Why can you not answer this question in a manner that is not circular and tautological?